406 MHz ELT’s Becoming Mandatory in Canada

[EdFred]

A good bureaucratic way for the FAA to address this is to publish a notice that states that the act of filing through Canadian airspace indicates that you are properly equipped to fly in Canadian airspace.


Then if something happens, you can be in violation of both Canadian and US rules.

Yay! More government stupidity.

*cough* English Proficient *cough*

 

[alaskaflyer]

Yes, I suppose it is correct. The FAA has no authority to enforce Canadian rules -- that's TC's job, not the FAA's.

Are you saying that the FAA cannot or will not take certificate action against a pilot for actions outside of US airspace, or am I taking your statement above too far?

 

[bstratt]

Ed,

Don't want to speak for Ron, but what I think he's saying is that if you have to inadvertently/unintentionally land in Canada you will need the new ELT. So if your talking to Cleveland, have an engine failure and you divert to an airport in Canada because its closest, that may be a problem.

I think the bigger question is if on an over flight you crash! Who comes looking for you and how?

 

[Dan Thomas]

Yep, that's a big ocean, but I don't fly over it.

Sorry, but maybe your browser doesn't allow you to scroll across to see the bigger picture. You should have a scroll bar across the bottom. If not, see this:

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/7000/7052/us_population_2005_lrg.jpg

Note the difference in population densities between the Canada and US. The map supposedly covers US density, but they have all the densities for Canada right, too.

Dan

 

[TMetzinger]

Sorry, but maybe your browser doesn't allow you to scroll across to see the bigger picture. You should have a scroll bar across the bottom. If not, see this:

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/7000/7052/us_population_2005_lrg.jpg

Note the difference in population densities between the Canada and US. The map supposedly covers US density, but they have all the densities for Canada right, too.

Dan

Dan makes his point, but really, the point is - if you crash, you want someone to come look for you, right? After Feb 9, the only way anyone will come look for you will be:

• You're on an IFR flight plan and vanish
• You're on an active VFR flight plan and don't close it
• You have a 121.5 ELT and it activates and some overflying airplane hears it and reports it.
• Someone reports you missing.
• You have a 406 MHz ELT or PLB that is activated.

Out of all of those options, the 406 MHz gives you the highest likelihood of being found in a timeframe that will let you live. Dropping off ATC radar on an IFR plan is probably the next best. ALL the others suck by comparison.

ACK should be shipping it's unit for less than $600.00 - it seems a reasonable option to me.

 

[EdFred]

I think the bigger question is if on an over flight you crash! Who comes looking for you and how?

Well since it's only overflight over Lake Erie, I am pretty sure my ELT doesn't magically not work in Canada. What happens if I crash in North Dakota?

 

[alaskaflyer]

• You're on an IFR flight plan and vanish
• You're on an active VFR flight plan and don't close it
• You have a 121.5 ELT and it activates and some overflying airplane hears it and reports it.
• Someone reports you missing.
• You have a 406 MHz ELT or PLB that is activated.

Dropping off ATC radar on an IFR plan is probably the next best. ALL the others suck by comparison.

And bullet point number three is the suckiest of all. The chances of it being heard by overflying aircraft and reported from the jetways is actually still not bad. BUT it will be days before anything is done about it, assuming it doesn't weaken and die after the first few hours.

After Feb. 1 the only use your old ELT will have to you is to help searchers home in if they already know you are missing by some other means above, and can narrow down your flight path to some reasonable square mileage to begin searching in.

:shrug: I have been researching my replacement for a few weeks now, and hope to get mine installed in January or February. It will be a GPS-enabled model.

 

[TMetzinger]

Well since it's only overflight over Lake Erie, I am pretty sure my ELT doesn't magically not work in Canada. What happens if I crash in North Dakota?

After Feb 9, not much, unless you fit into one of the categories above.

Seriously, even when the SARSATs were listening, the 121.5 MHz ELTs were only useful in the final part of the search phase, and that phase often came too late for the injured. The 406 MHz beacons are MUCH better in this regard - with all other things equal, you'll be noticed faster, and the searchers will have a much smaller initial area to search, and this gets smaller faster. All of which means you stand a much better chance of being rescued.

 

[RMCN172RG]

Well since it's only overflight over Lake Erie, I am pretty sure my ELT doesn't magically not work in Canada. What happens if I crash in North Dakota?

The 121.5 ELT issue is no satellite monitoring after 2/1/2009.

If an ELT goes off in ND and nobody hears it you can get real cold real fast.

 

[gprellwitz]

ACK should be shipping it's unit for less than $600.00 - it seems a reasonable option to me.

I'd probably agree...... IF YOU OWN YOUR PLANE. Doesn't work well for renters if the plane owner doesn't install it. That's why I'd like them to accept a PLB. Leslie and I already own 2 of them.

 

[TMetzinger]

I'd probably agree...... IF YOU OWN YOUR PLANE. Doesn't work well for renters if the plane owner doesn't install it. That's why I'd like them to accept a PLB. Leslie and I already own 2 of them.

I'd be happy to see an FAA rule requiring 406 in airplanes operated for hire, including rentals. The capital cost is frankly not that significant. Of greater concern MAY be the inspections on the units - I believe (but don't know) that they require special equipment that many avionics shops don't have. But if they were required equipment on airplanes, then the avionics guys would probably feel better about making the investment for whatever is needed to inspect and service them.

 

[gprellwitz]

I'd be happy to see an FAA rule requiring 406 in airplanes operated for hire, including rentals. The capital cost is frankly not that significant. Of greater concern MAY be the inspections on the units - I believe (but don't know) that they require special equipment that many avionics shops don't have. But if they were required equipment on airplanes, then the avionics guys would probably feel better about making the investment for whatever is needed to inspect and service them.

So that would act as an impediment to having people put their planes on leaseback. Don't know if that's a great idea. Plus the cost of opening an older plane to put this in will be higher than I suspect you're allowing for, due to MIFs (Maintenance Induced Failures).

 

[el con]

What's really sad is that the ELT manufacturers are doubling (or more ) the cost of the 406. It probably does'nt cost any more than the ones we have now. If just one company would have the cahones' to make one for $500-$700 ,they would have the market. I could probably find enough change in the couch or turn in can's and bottles to scrape up enough for the new one.
For $3295, Garmin should have built one in to their new 696.

 

[KennyFlys]

What's really sad is that the ELT manufacturers are doubling (or more ) the cost of the 406. It probably does'nt cost any more than the ones we have now. If just one company would have the cahones' to make one for $500-$700 ,they would have the market. I could probably find enough change in the couch or turn in can's and bottles to scrape up enough for the new one.
For $3295, Garmin should have built one in to their new 696.

They are pricey, indeed.

But, I'm betting a good part of the cost of production is the intangibles, primarily liability coverage. It only takes one to fail and a jury to make a huge award to break the bank on many aviation equipment manufacturers.

 

[TMetzinger]

What's really sad is that the ELT manufacturers are doubling (or more ) the cost of the 406. It probably does'nt cost any more than the ones we have now. If just one company would have the cahones' to make one for $500-$700 ,they would have the market. I could probably find enough change in the couch or turn in can's and bottles to scrape up enough for the new one.
For $3295, Garmin should have built one in to their new 696.

ACK's E-04 fits into that price range, and resellers are taking orders now for January delivery.

 

[Ted]

I'd probably agree...... IF YOU OWN YOUR PLANE. Doesn't work well for renters if the plane owner doesn't install it. That's why I'd like them to accept a PLB. Leslie and I already own 2 of them.

Yep... and most rental outfits probably aren't interested in spending the money on the upgrade.

I'm thinking that when I get my plane I will probably want to put one in it.

 

[Anthony]

Sorry, but maybe your browser doesn't allow you to scroll across to see the bigger picture. You should have a scroll bar across the bottom. If not, see this:

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/7000/7052/us_population_2005_lrg.jpg

Note the difference in population densities between the Canada and US. The map supposedly covers US density, but they have all the densities for Canada right, too.

Dan

Thanks Dan. Got it! Yes that is a stark difference in population. Was this the argument they used for the new regulation?

 

[Dan Thomas]

Thanks Dan. Got it! Yes that is a stark difference in population. Was this the argument they used for the new regulation?

That was one. The other was the loss of the 121.5 satellite monitoring.

There's another unit called SPOT that some guys are using here. It isn't acceptable to Transport Canada in place of a 406, but it has the potential to be more useful. An ELT requires that the airplane not be on its back (antenna stuck in the ground), not be in the water (the ELT and its antenna are both useless) and that the airplane doesn't burn up real quick and take the ELT with it. These are rather common scenarios here. So some are using both the ELT and the SPOT, which beeps off GPS coordinates to satellites (I think it uses satphone technology) at least once a minute while the airplane is in flight. If the thing stops transmitting the system alerts a responsible person by phone, who calls SAR and gives them the last coordinates transmitted. Depending on speed, the airplane should be within one minute's range of that spot.

Transport Canada doesn't like it because it relies on the pilot remembering to turn it on and off. I like it because it works even if everything blows up or drowns or whatever. The unit costs around $180 and there's a yearly subscription fee.

Pointer Avionics has built a 406 ELT that has a stand-alone GPS in it to send off the coordinates when triggered by the crash. It'll cost around CDN$1000 but hasn't been certified yet. But it, too, will rely on the airplane being more or less upright so the GPS antenna can figure out where it's at. Even then, in some of the mountain valleys or among dense forest the GPS reception is poor. SPOT doesn't suffer that problem.

To have any other ELT connected to the aircraft's GPS costs a lot more.

Dan

 

[gismo]

Yep... and most rental outfits probably aren't interested in spending the money on the upgrade.

I'm thinking that when I get my plane I will probably want to put one in it.

I'm still waiting for:

http://www.ackavionics.com/index.html

No doubt due to the FAA certification quagmire it's been "expected soon" for several months. In the meantime I carry a PLB with built in GPS which IMO is better than an ELT unless you fly into the side of a mountain unexpectedly. Even then, I suspect that if you're alive enough to be worth rescuing, you'll be able to activate it. And unlike an ELT, it won't burn up with the plane provided you keep it on your person.

 

[TMetzinger]

SPOT does not work as described above.

SPOT can be configured to send periodic "here I am" messages, and as long as it can see the satellites to which it transmits, it appears to work fairly well.. It was used on the recent Mooney flight around the world for ALS, and you can see that it did miss some transmissions.

SPOT has a 911 button that will alert the SPOT monitoring folks, who will then call your designated people. They do not automatically do anything when they stop receiving updates. If you crash, and you can't activate the 911 button, you're stuck until somebody misses you (flight plan, ATC, people waiting). At THAT point the SPOT track can be useful.

There are a few pilots here in the DC area with SPOT, and the tracking performance hasn't inspired enough confidence to be a substitute for a PLB.

Or, put another way - it's cool, but I'd rather bet my life on a PLB or 406 ELT (you CAN manually activate those things on the way down, you know!)

 

[Ted]

I'm still waiting for:

http://www.ackavionics.com/index.html

No doubt due to the FAA certification quagmire it's been "expected soon" for several months. In the meantime I carry a PLB with built in GPS which IMO is better than an ELT unless you fly into the side of a mountain unexpectedly. Even then, I suspect that if you're alive enough to be worth rescuing, you'll be able to activate it. And unlike an ELT, it won't burn up with the plane provided you keep it on your person.

Now that seems nice and worthwhile, plus affordable. I'd go for that one.

 

[Dan Thomas]

SPOT does not work as described above.

OK. I wasn't all that clear on it, not having fiddled with one. But at least the message record could be checked once someone doesn't show up to see where they might be.

Dan

 

[CT Arrow]

Canada Confirms 406-MHz ELT Rule Implementation (as of 12-18-08)

Unless you have a 406-MHz emergency locator transmitter (ELT), even your U.S.-registered airplane will be closed to Canadian airspace in approximately two years. Even flights that begin and end in the United States—but with a segment involving transition of Canadian airspace—will not be permitted, based on a decision made recently by Transport Canada that will cover all foreign-registered aircraft as well as those operated under Canadian registration. As of this February, search and rescue satellites will cease to monitor 121.5 MHz, the frequency used by older ELTs. New 406-MHz units typically cost $1,000 plus installation, according to the Canadian Owners and Pilots Association, and are soon to be eclipsed by better technology. The FAA has so far not mandated installation of the new ELTs, and the COPA management has projected that the new ruling will severely cut down on U.S. aircraft operators visiting their northern neighbor. The group estimates that 63,000 foreign-registered aircraft visited Canada last year—90 percent from the United States.

As reported by flying e wire

 

[TMetzinger]

Canada Confirms 406-MHz ELT Rule Implementation (as of 12-18-08)

Unless you have a 406-MHz emergency locator transmitter (ELT), even your U.S.-registered airplane will be closed to Canadian airspace in approximately two years. Even flights that begin and end in the United States—but with a segment involving transition of Canadian airspace—will not be permitted, based on a decision made recently by Transport Canada that will cover all foreign-registered aircraft as well as those operated under Canadian registration. As of this February, search and rescue satellites will cease to monitor 121.5 MHz, the frequency used by older ELTs. New 406-MHz units typically cost $1,000 plus installation, according to the Canadian Owners and Pilots Association, and are soon to be eclipsed by better technology. The FAA has so far not mandated installation of the new ELTs, and the COPA management has projected that the new ruling will severely cut down on U.S. aircraft operators visiting their northern neighbor. The group estimates that 63,000 foreign-registered aircraft visited Canada last year—90 percent from the United States.

As reported by flying e wire

I saw that too, and I'd like to learn what the "better technology" is - anyone know?

 

[brien23]

As posted on the AOPA website, Mexican regulation NOM-012-SCT3-2001 requires that as of July 1, 2008 all aircraft flying to Mexico must have a 406 MHz ELT.

 

[wsuffa]

COPA management has projected that the new ruling will severely cut down on U.S. aircraft operators visiting their northern neighbor.

Ya mean like what the US CBP has done with it's new border crossing rules?

 

[John Collins]

I saw that too, and I'd like to learn what the "better technology" is - anyone know?

The better technology that AOPA is referring to is ADS-B. I doubt this would provide wide coverage over Canada and the USA system uses two separate technologies and two frequencies (978 MHz UAT for GA and 1090 MHz ES for Air Carrier and high altitude users). 1090ES is the international standard and UAT is only supported in the USA, and since Canada has not adopted UAT at this time, most GA aircraft would not have coverage.

 

[John Collins]

That was one. The other was the loss of the 121.5 satellite monitoring.

...

Pointer Avionics has built a 406 ELT that has a stand-alone GPS in it to send off the coordinates when triggered by the crash. It'll cost around CDN$1000 but hasn't been certified yet. But it, too, will rely on the airplane being more or less upright so the GPS antenna can figure out where it's at. Even then, in some of the mountain valleys or among dense forest the GPS reception is poor. SPOT doesn't suffer that problem.

To have any other ELT connected to the aircraft's GPS costs a lot more.

Dan

The ACK unit will sell for $600 US and has GPS input capability. It should be able to be installed for around $1000 with an interface to the on board GPS. This is what I plan to have installed in my aircraft at the next annual.

 

[John Collins]

An ELT requires that the airplane not be on its back (antenna stuck in the ground), not be in the water (the ELT and its antenna are both useless) and that the airplane doesn't burn up real quick and take the ELT with it. These are rather common scenarios here.

Dan

Dan,

A 406 MHz ELT with a GPS can provide a position within one minute of activation. If the pilot knows that a forced landing is imminent, it can be activated while still in the air. Even in a water landing, as long as the aircraft remains afloat for more than a minute, it could do its job. Although not all crashes will result in a usable signal being broadcast, the 406 ELT uses 5 watts of power verses 100 milliwatts of power.

Note that if there isn't a GPS position provided, it will still take hours to obtain a rough position fix from a low earth orbit satellite and the unit has to remain transmitting during this time for a position to be determined. What is known immediately is that an activation has occurred. This can be picked up by the geostationary satellites and relayed to SAR immediately and in some cases a rough position can be determined from other sources.

With a GPS position, there is no need to wait for the low earth orbit satellite to pass overhead, as the geostationary has everything it needs to know within the first minute after activation.

With regards to the loss of the SARSAT monitoring the 121.5 ELT, there is really no effective difference. Today they are unlikely to find you with SARSAT and after monitoring stops, they will still be unlikely to find you.

 

[Ted]

The more I read about this, the more I'm convinced I want one in my plane, regardless of regs, and with GPS input.

That said, I don't think the regs should say that private aircraft owners should need to install it. Part 121/135 operations are different

 

[brien23]

Two types under $1,000.

The Ameri-King AK-451-( ) Series is a FAA TSO’d approved, JAA JTSO’d approved, 406 MHz ELT Emergency Locator Transmitter, Types (AF) Automatic Fixed, (AP) Automatic Portable, (S) Survival. It transmits aircraft GPS/NAV position data, immediately and accurately, on triple (406 Satellite /243 Military /121.5 Civilian) MHz frequencies.
The supreme advantage feature is the aircraft GPS/NAV Latitude / Longitude exact position shall be transmitted, within 1 minute, on the very first burst, without waiting for a Polar Orbiting Satellite (could be up to 4 hours). Enhance the accuracy significantly, for the ground search area, from 1-2 kilometers (non GPS/ NAV Position) to 22 meters typical (with GPS/NAV Position).

The ACK E-04 ELT is a direct replacement for the 62,000 model E-01 ELT’s we have produced. The E-04 fits direcdtly into E-01 mounting trays, and uses the same remote control panel indicator. The E-04 external antenna will utilize your current antenna mounting and wiring installations.

• Accepts GPS position input data from Bendix/King, Garmin, Nema 0183 GPS.
• New antenna is swept back 20 degrees, and features a molded plastic base.
• 5 watts @ 406 MHz for 24 hours, and 100Mw @ 121MHz for 48 hours
• New simple plug in audible alert indicator
• new lithium battery pack offers a 5 year battery life, and makes it substantially lighter
• Can use ameriking remote panel indicator

 

[TMetzinger]

The better technology that AOPA is referring to is ADS-B. I doubt this would provide wide coverage over Canada and the USA system uses two separate technologies and two frequencies (978 MHz UAT for GA and 1090 MHz ES for Air Carrier and high altitude users). 1090ES is the international standard and UAT is only supported in the USA, and since Canada has not adopted UAT at this time, most GA aircraft would not have coverage.

I don't see ADS-B being a replacement for an ELT. The devices aren't at all similar in function, or in crashworthiness. Now, I can see the ADS-B having some utility in an emergency, as you could activate a distress mode that would automatically alert ATC, transmit position data, etc, but that's not the same thing as having a beacon that goes off when you fly into the side of a mountain.

 

[poadeleted7]

Now, I can see the ADS-B having some utility in an emergency, but that's not the same thing as having a beacon that goes off when you fly into the side of a mountain.

Good Grief

 

[KennyFlys]

Good Grief

Now, I'm confused. What's the issue with Tim's statement? It makes sense to me.

Isn't the purpose of ADS-B to provide a more specific location of a specific aircraft without concern of the transponder code?

 

[TMetzinger]

Now, I'm confused. What's the issue with Tim's statement? It makes sense to me.

Isn't the purpose of ADS-B to provide a more specific location of a specific aircraft without concern of the transponder code?

I also note that I wasn't accurately quoted. But this particular user has had issues with things I've said on the purple board and here, so I just put him on my ignore list....Can't tell who he really is anyway.

Maybe there's something in the ADS-B spec about emergency usage, but I'm not aware of it incorporating a G-switch, independent power, and other crashworthy features the way an ELT does.

 

[John Collins]

Maybe there's something in the ADS-B spec about emergency usage, but I'm not aware of it incorporating a G-switch, independent power, and other crashworthy features the way an ELT does.

No, there isn't anything in the specification about emergency usage. I believe the thinking is that aircraft current position is broadcast every second and if systems were put in place to recall the data when an aircraft was missing, it could aid SAR locate the aircraft position. IMHO, there are flaws in this approach, but it was viewed as a way to make ADS-B more attractive (or more accurately, less unattractive) to a GA aircraft owner.

 

[TMetzinger]

Ah, I see. I'm really disappointed in where ADS-B has ended up. I participated in some testing at Langley where they flew multiple ADS-B equipped airplanes in and out of an uncontrolled field with a small automated system sequencing them, so four airplanes could be in the terminal airspace at once. Worked pretty well, and in the sim sessions we found we could self-manuever and avoid conflicts without any ATC assistance.

I want what we were promised - the equivalent of TCAS with other ADS-B airplanes, datalinked weather and ATC clearances, more direct routing, and the tax savings of eliminating radar. Oh, yes, at a price not more than 2X a conventional transponder, with price decreasing as adoption increases. Make it mandatory everywhere a transponder is required today.

 

[brien23]

If you never land in Canada, how would the Canadians know whether or not you had the 406MHz beacon?

Canada could ask the FAA to require you make a statement in the remarks section of a flight plan like 406 MHZ beacon installed. If you make a false statement your in real trouble with the FAA and Canada.

 

[Everskyward]

What is the latest word on this is it going to be required or not for U.S. aircraft going into Canada.

Canada Backs Off 406 ELTs

Canada's Minister of Transport, John Baird, has overruled his bureaucracy and suspended implementation of a controversial rule that would have required almost all aircraft to have certified 406 Mhz emergency locator transmitters installed by February of 2011 in order to fly legally in Canada. The rule would have applied to aircraft trying to enter Canada from other countries.

 

[steingar]

I don't even want to deal with the DHS requirements no less this.